alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Official Journal C 263/2006

| | ISSN 1725-2423 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 263 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 4931 October 2006 |

ISSN 1725-2423

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 263

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 4931 October 2006

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | |
| 2006/C 263/1 | FOREWORD | s2 |

Notice No

Contents

page

2006/C 263/1

FOREWORD

s2

---

| | I   Information |
| --- | --- |
| | Court of Auditors — Annual Reports concerning the financial year 2005 |
| 2006/C 263/2 | Annual Report on the implementation of the budget, together with the institutions' replies | 1 |
| 2006/C 263/3 | Annual Report on the activities funded by the sixth, seventh, eighth and ninth European Development Funds (EDFs), together with the institutions' replies | 205 |

I   Information

Court of Auditors — Annual Reports concerning the financial year 2005

2006/C 263/2

Annual Report on the implementation of the budget, together with the institutions' replies

1

2006/C 263/3

Annual Report on the activities funded by the sixth, seventh, eighth and ninth European Development Funds (EDFs), together with the institutions' replies

205

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
# Bulletin No. 2024-01

&"Arial,Bold"&12U.S. Standard General LedgerSummary of Changes	

&"Arial,Bold"Bulletin No. 2024-01	&"Arial,Bold" &P	&"Arial,Bold"December 2023

# Additional Information

&"Arial,Bold"&12U.S. Standard General LedgerSummary of Changes	

&"Arial,Bold"Bulletin No. 2024-01	&"Arial,Bold" &P	&"Arial,Bold"December 2023
ACCOUNTING TOPICS
ILLUSTRATED
IN THIS GUIDE

"eS
Scenario | Basic Trust Fund Accounting

Scenario Il Trust Fund Balances Precluded
from Obligation

Nesielee lies Trust Fund Receipts Available for
Investment but not Obligation

eee aes Trust Fund Investments

SCiruiCoe aa Treasury-Managed Trust Fund
Allocation Accounts

Ker oe ie Trust Fund Appropriation Transfers
for Specific Treasury Appropriation
Fund Symbols

Neila iae Trust Funds with Contract Authority-
Part I: Appropriations to Liquidate
Contract Authority-Funded by
Nonexpenditure Transfers

SeEWCOMYIIE Trust Funds with Contract Authority-
Part Il: Transfers of Contract Authority
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          57,508
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                98,500
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    379,029
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          11,254
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            11,554
<LOANS>                                      1,623,145
<ALLOWANCE>                                     32,668
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,218,528
<DEPOSITS>                                   1,900,679
<SHORT-TERM>                                     6,317
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             35,942
<LONG-TERM>                                     40,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           741
<OTHER-SE>                                     234,849
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               2,218,528
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                166,513
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               21,206
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                 3,231
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               190,950
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              77,077
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              79,611
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                          111,339
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                   16,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                               3,316
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 50,181
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 67,910
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      67,910
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    43,905
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.93
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.93
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    5.40
<LOANS-NON>                                      7,427
<LOANS-PAST>                                    27,778
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                25,640
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                   11,341
<RECOVERIES>                                     2,369
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               32,668
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            29,365
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                          3,303
        

</TABLE>
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-15-00455-CR

Abraham SANCHEZ,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 290th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014CR7645

Honorable Melisa Skinner, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Jason Pulliam, Justice

Delivered and Filed: August 12, 2015

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION

In a plea bargain case, on April 15, 2015, Appellant Abraham Sanchez was sentenced on 

two counts to sixteen-years’ confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice—

Institutional Division in trial court cause number 2014CR7645. The trial court’s certification 

states this “is a plea bargain case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal.” Assuming arguendo 

that Appellant had a right to appeal, Appellant’s notice of appeal was due not later than May 15, 

2015. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2(a); Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). 

Appellant’s motion for extension of time to file a notice of appeal was due not later than June 1, 
04-15-00455-CR

- 2 -

2015. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.3; Olivo, 918 S.W.2d at 522. The clerk’s record shows Appellant’s 

notice of appeal was filed on July 20, 2015; it does not show a motion for new trial or a motion 

for extension of time to file a notice of appeal was filed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.3. 

In his response to our July 24, 2015 order to show cause why this court has jurisdiction in 

this appeal, Appellant acknowledges he did not timely file a notice of appeal. Instead, he moves 

this court to grant an out-of-time appeal.

“A timely notice of appeal is necessary to invoke a court of appeals’ jurisdiction.” Olivo, 

918 S.W.2d at 522; Quintero v. State, No. 04-13-00073-CR, 2013 WL 618789, at *1 (Tex. App.—

San Antonio Feb. 20, 2013, no pet.) (per curiam) (mem. op., not designated for publication). 

Appellant concedes his notice of appeal was not timely filed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2. Even if 

we construe his motion for permission to file an out-of-time appeal as a motion for extension of 

time, it was not timely filed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.3; Quintero, 2013 WL 618789, at *1. Absent 

a timely-filed, written notice of appeal of a criminal conviction, this court lacks jurisdiction over 

the appeal. Olivo, 918 S.W.2d at 522; Shute v. State, 744 S.W.2d 96, 97 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988). 

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. 

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH
Bureau of the Fiscal Service

1

OTCnet Printable Job Aid

Print a Receipt in Batch Management

To print a receipt using Batch Management, complete the following steps:

1. From the Check Processing tab, click Batch Management. 

2. Select or enter the batch search conditions you would like view.

Under Batch Search Conditions, optional

• Select the OTC Endpoint you want to Edit a batch for by checking the under 

the 

Select column

Under Created On Date, optional

• Enter the From and To date range

• The From and To Created On Date must be entered in MM/DD/YYYY format.

• The Created On Date range cannot exceed 30 days. Additionally, if more than 1,000 

batches are created within 30 days then only the most recent 1,000 batches appear.

• If you run a search with the default From and To Created On Date range values, 

the search results include the most recent 30 days of batches that you have access 

to view. If more than 1,000 batches are created within the 30 days then only the most 

recent 1,000 batches appear.

• If you run a search without specifying any criteria (with the exception of the Batch 

ID field), the search results include the most recent 30 days of batches that you have 

access to view. If more than 1,000 batches are created within 30 days then only the 

most recent 1,000 batches appear.

• Enter the Batch ID, optional

If the only search criteria entered is a valid Batch ID then only a single result appears 

regardless of other search criteria specified.

• Enter the Cashier ID, optional

Under Batch Status, optional

• Select the Status you want to view by checking the Open or Closed box 

under the Select column

3. Click Search. The View Batch page appears.

Application Tips

Application Tip
Bureau of the Fiscal Service

2

OTCnet Printable Job Aid

Click the Batch ID hyperlink. The View Checks page appears as shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1. View Checks Page (Receipt)

If a batch is in use and another user attempts to access the same batch, a Batch Lock 

message appears stating the batch is in use and he/she cannot access the batch.

4. Click the Item ID of each scanned check. An image of the check and details of the check 

appear in the window below. 

5. Click Receipt. The receipt appears.

6. Click Print to print the receipt.

Account numbers and User Defined Fields (UDFs) that are marked as Personally 

Identifiable Information (PII) are masked. If there are more than five characters, OTCnet 

masks all but the last four characters. If there are five characters or less, the system 

masks all but the last character.

7. Click Close to close the receipt.

• Click Show Item to view more details about the check. 

• Under Server Controls, click Receipt to print the receipt.

Application Tip

Application Tip

Application Tips
No. 51376.

#### Protests 497765-G, etc., of Bloomingdale Bros., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is the same in all material respects as the gloves which were the subject of *United States*v. *Julius Kayser & Co.*(33 C. C. P. A. 179, C. A. D. 333). In accordance therewith the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Filed by Bowne Pure Compliance






Exhibit 10.3




AMENDMENT TO THE

INTEGRA LIFESCIENCES HOLDINGS CORPORATION

2003 EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN




This Amendment (the “Amendment”) to the Integra LifeSciences Holdings Corporation 2003 Equity
Incentive Plan (the “Plan”), which was adopted by the Board of Directors of Integra LifeSciences
Holdings Corporation (the “Company”) on April 23, 2008 and made effective as of July 9, 2008,
amends the Plan as follows:



The first sentence of Section 5 is hereby amended to read in its entirety as follows:



“The aggregate number of Shares that may be delivered under the Plan is 4,750,000.”



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of the Company, has caused this
Amendment to be executed on this 9th day of July, 2008.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	INTEGRA LIFESCIENCES HOLDINGS CORPORATION
	 
	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	By:
	 	/s/ Stuart M. Essig
	 

	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	Name: Stuart M. Essig

Title: President and Chief Executive Officer
No. 60802.

#### W. A. Taylor & Co. *v.*United States,

protest 231714-K (San Francisco) .

Opinion by

Rao, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of cardboard boxes, which are the usual containers or coverings of the specific duty-paying cognac, imported therein, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
21.06
101258-1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

STEAMFITTERS LOCAL UNION NO. 420 : CIVIL ACTION

WELFARE FUND, :

Plaintiffs :

v. :

:

AJAX PHILADELPHIA, INC. :

:

Defendant : NO. 02-2776

REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL OF COMPLAINT

AGAINST AJAX PHILADELPHIA, INC.

PURSUANT TO FED.R.CIV.PRO. 41(a)

TO THE CLERK:

No answer or motion for summary judgment having been filed, this matter is dismissed without

prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 41(a).

Respectfully submitted,

JENNINGS SIGMOND

BY: s/Sanford G. Rosenthal 

SANFORD G. ROSENTHAL (ID.NO. 38991)

The Penn Mutual Towers, 16th Floor

510 Walnut Street

Philadelphia, PA 19106-3683

(215) 351-0611

Attorney for Plaintiffs

Date: June 25, 2002

NOTE: This document has been electronically filed.

Case 2:02-cv-02776 Document 3 Filed 06/25/2002 Page 1 of 1
Creditor’s
      Rights
      and Liability Confirmation Agreement 

    


    Party
      A:
      Tibet Changdu Huiheng Development Co., Ltd.

    Party
      B:
      Shenzhen OUR International Technology Development Co., Ltd.

    Party
      C:
      Shenzhen Jiancheng Investment Co., Ltd.

    


    1.
      Whereas: both Party A and Party B are shareholders of Shenzhen Hyper Technology
      Incorporation (“Shenzhen Hyper” hereinafter), Party A holds 75% equity interest
      while Party B holds 25% equity interest of Shenzhen Hyper; By the end of
      December 31, 2007, Party C still owes Party A 5 million RMB. 

    2.
      Whereas: Party A, B and C agreed in early 2006 on the following: Party B would
      transfer its 25% equity interest of Shenzhen Hyper to Party A; Party C would
      pay
      5 million RMB to Party B on behalf of Party A. 

    3.
      Whereas Party B can not execute the equity interest transfer up to now, Party
      A,
      B and C reach an agreement by negotiation: the equity interest transaction
      between Party A and B should be suspended, Party B still keeps the 25% equity
      interest of Shenzhen Hyper, and Party C would pay back by 5 million RMB to
      Party
      A by installment. The specific repayment schedule is as follows:

    


    By
      the
      end of June, 2008: pay back 1.5 million RMB;

    By
      the
      end of August, 2008: pay back 1.5 million RMB;

    By
      the
      end of October, 2008: pay back 1 million RMB;

    By
      the
      end of December, 2008: pay back the balance of 1 million RMB;

    


    4.
      The
      agreement should come into effective after signed and sealed by Party A, B
      and
      C. Three copies of the agreement should be signed, and each party should hold
      one copy. 


    
      
         

      

      
         

        
          

        

      

      
         

      

    


    


    5.
      Should
      any dispute arise for the execution of the agreement, Party A, B and C should
      go
      for a settlement through negotiation. If no agreement can be made through
      negotiation, any party can place an arbitration the place of signing the
      agreement. The result of arbitration is considered to be final.

    


    


    Party
      A:
      Tiber Changdu Huiheng Development Co., Ltd.

    By:
      /s/
      Richard Shen        


    Representative:
      Mr. Richard Shen

    


    


    Party
      B:
      Shenzhen OUR International Technology Development Co., Ltd.

    By:
      /s/
      Jin Hong        


    Representative:
      Ms. Jin Hong

    


    


    Party
      C:
      Shenzhen Jiancheng Investment Co., Ltd. 

    By:
      /s/
      Li
      Jun        


    Representative:
      Mr. Li Jun

    


    


    
      	
              Date
                of signing: 

            	
              Place
                of signing:

            
	
              January
                3, 2008

            	
              Shenzhen,
                Guangdong, PRC
# Data

&L&"Arial"&10&BBulletin No. 2018-04	&"Arial,Bold"VII VSR - &P	&R&"Arial"&10&BMarch 2018
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4052 

To direct the United States Postal Service to designate a single, unique 

ZIP Code for Scotland, Connecticut. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 22, 2024 

Mr. MURPHY introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

A BILL 

To direct the United States Postal Service to designate a 

single, unique ZIP Code for Scotland, Connecticut. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SINGLE, UNIQUE ZIP CODE FOR SCOTLAND, 

4 CONNECTICUT. 

5 Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment 

6 of this Act, the United States Postal Service shall des7 ignate a single, unique ZIP Code, to be numbered 06264, 

8 applicable to the area encompassing solely Scotland, Con9 necticut. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13**  **- 6216** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. RODERICK DONTA STRONG , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Greenville
. Malcolm J. Howard , Senior District Judge. ( 4:09

- cr - 00020

- H

- 1; 4:12

- cv - 00177

- H )

Submitted : April 18, 2013 Decided: April 23, 2013

Before WILKINSON, GREGORY , and DAVIS , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Roderick Donta Strong, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. May

Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Rod erick Donta Strong seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 225 3(c)(1) (B) (2006) . A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demons trate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484

- 85 (2000)
. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Strong has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<PAGE>

<ARTICLE>           5
<LEGEND>
                    The Schedule contains summary financial 
                    information extracted from the financial
                    statements for World Monitor Trust-Series C
                    and is qualified in its entirety by reference
                    to such financial statements
</LEGEND>

<RESTATED>          

<CIK>               1051824

<NAME>              World Monitor Trust-Series C
<MULTIPLIER>        1

<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               Dec-31-1998

<PERIOD-START>                  Jun-10-1998

<PERIOD-END>                    Jun-26-1998

<PERIOD-TYPE>                   1-Mo

<CASH>                          6,117,893

<SECURITIES>                    (58,155)

<RECEIVABLES>                   14,799

<ALLOWANCES>                    0

<INVENTORY>                     0

<CURRENT-ASSETS>                6,074,537

<PP&E>                          0

<DEPRECIATION>                  0

<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  6,074,537

<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           43,912

<BONDS>                         0

<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>           0

<PREFERRED>                     0

<COMMON>                        0

<OTHER-SE>                      6,030,625

<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    6,074,537

<SALES>                         0

<TOTAL-REVENUES>                (144,445)

<CGS>                           0

<TOTAL-COSTS>                   0

<OTHER-EXPENSES>                26,216

<LOSS-PROVISION>                0

<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              0

<INCOME-PRETAX>                 0

<INCOME-TAX>                    0

<INCOME-CONTINUING>             0

<DISCONTINUED>                  0

<EXTRAORDINARY>                 0

<CHANGES>                       0

<NET-INCOME>                    (170,661)

<EPS-PRIMARY>                   (2.90)

<EPS-DILUTED>                   (2.90)

</TABLE>
Before the First Division,

May 16, 1962

No. 66761.

#### Devon Trading Company *v.*United States,

protests 60/20473, 60/27486, and 60/29073 (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, C.J.

In accordance with oral stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of rosary bracelets, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained. *The J. Orlando Co., Inc., et al.*v. *United States*(43 Cust. Ct. 115, C.D. 2114), followed.
wellquest_s1a-ex1009.htm


     

    Please
see PDF "wellquest_s1a-ex1009.pdf" for Exhibit 10.9 - Business Loan
Agreement
No. *65434.*

#### A. V. Olsson Trading Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 60/21473 (New York).

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of bread similar in all material respects to that the subject of *United States*v. *Nordic Baking & Importing Co., Inc.*(47 C.C.P.A. 78, C.A.D. 733), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.